On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 13:40:03 +0100, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 05:30:09PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
The API can be used to associate one or more (e.g. a RO and RW fd for a disk backend image) FDs to a VM. They can be then used per definition.
The primary use case for now is for complex deployment where libvirtd/virtqemud may be run inside a container and getting the image into the container is complicated.
In the future it will also allow passing e.g. vhost FDs and other resources to a VM without the need to have a filesystem representation for it.
Passing raw FDs has few intricacies and thus libvirt will by default not restore security labels.
Signed-off-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com> --- include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h | 22 ++++++++ src/driver-hypervisor.h | 8 +++ src/libvirt-domain.c | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ src/libvirt_public.syms | 5 ++ src/remote/remote_daemon_dispatch.c | 40 ++++++++++++++ src/remote/remote_driver.c | 27 ++++++++++ src/remote/remote_protocol.x | 14 ++++- src/remote_protocol-structs | 6 +++ 8 files changed, 203 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h b/include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h index 295fd30c93..a1e39f2f70 100644 --- a/include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h +++ b/include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h @@ -6457,4 +6457,26 @@ int virDomainStartDirtyRateCalc(virDomainPtr domain, int seconds, unsigned int flags);
+ +/** + * virDomainFDAssociateFlags: + * + * Since: 9.0.0 + */ +typedef enum { + /* Attempt a best-effort restore of security labels after use (Since: 9.0.0) */ + VIR_DOMAIN_FD_ASSOCIATE_SECLABEL_RESTORE = (1 << 0), + /* Require mandatory restore of security labels after use (Since: 9.0.0) */ + VIR_DOMAIN_FD_ASSOCIATE_SECLABEL_RESTORE_REQUIRE = (1 << 1), + /* Use a seclabel allowing writes for the FD even if usage implies read-only mode (Since: 9.0.0) */ + VIR_DOMAIN_FD_ASSOCIATE_SECLABEL_WRITABLE = (1 << 2), +} virDomainFDAssociateFlags;
Do we need to introduce flag that is not supported by any hypervisor? It should be perfectly fine to introduce the flag once there is actual usage for it or am I missing something?
No, VIR_DOMAIN_FD_ASSOCIATE_SECLABEL_RESTORE_REQUIRE can be actually deleted for now and re-introduced once it's implemented.